Re: PCAN packages
- Posted by petelomax Feb 13, 2023
- 990 views
Personally I'm not fan of this or automatic includes in general. I don't like black-box "magic" unless I can somehow peek behind the curtain to specifically deduce what's going on.
There is nothing to stop you downloading and installing things manually, and if you don't put "[auto]" in your include statements none of this affects you anyway.
The onus of building and packaging an application should be solely on the developer.
There is clearly still a need for proper applications to be properly packaged, and if you're shipping a binary you kinda have to anyway.
That said, there is also a case for an amateur programmer to put out an amateur (open source) package, and Phix/Euphoria to pick up the pieces.
I was also perhaps thinking more along the lines of here's some source code, now how do I run it when the original author did a runner years ago?
I was thinking of taking a page out of Go's book with their go get command.
Not really a fan of go get: pip, Pkg.add() and even npm install simply work better. (OK, to be precise, it is good, but others are even better)
One thing they don't tell you in the go docs is that anything more than a year or so old is guaranteed fubar. And more than a few are Linux-only.
A requirements.txt (or packages.txt) could accompany each project
That could be done, and maybe, even probably, quite a bit simpler than your current thinking.
(not a fan of apps reading data from a human-editable webpage)
Absolutely, only post-manually-vetted stuff would ever actually be used, and all downloads properly sha-2 verified. (and to be really picky, I know you meant publically-editable)
[github.com] OpenEuphoria/foobar@v3.1.4 ghaberek/package-name@v1.5.9;sha256=a1b2c3d4e5f6... petelomax/phix-package@2.6.5;sha512=a1b2c3d4e5f6e5d4c3b2a1...
This negates the need for an API for actual package retrieval. And it puts the ownership solely in the hands of each package maintainer.
Not getting that. Where are the urls, installation hints, compatibility? Are you really saying github-only? If ownership is soley in their hands, how does that ever get on anyone else's machine?
Ah... is it that you are thinking more of a single application, whereas I've got my sights more on re-usable components?
You could just maintain an "Index" page with categorized links to known package repositories.
How is that in any way different to my suggested packages.txt file, exactly? Didn't like the layout? Too much useful information?
Only thing I ask is that I be involved in the design
Of course.
PS: I hadn't actually thought about the possibility of sticking anything on a cdn until just now, either.
